You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Assessing the impact of human genome annotation choice on RNA-seq expression estimates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-14-s11-s8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Po-Yen Wu, John H Phan, May D Wang |
| Abstract |
Genome annotation is a crucial component of RNA-seq data analysis. Much effort has been devoted to producing an accurate and rational annotation of the human genome. An annotated genome provides a comprehensive catalogue of genomic functional elements. Currently, at least six human genome annotations are publicly available, including AceView Genes, Ensembl Genes, H-InvDB Genes, RefSeq Genes, UCSC Known Genes, and Vega Genes. Characteristics of these annotations differ because of variations in annotation strategies and information sources. When performing RNA-seq data analysis, researchers need to choose a genome annotation. However, the effect of genome annotation choice on downstream RNA-seq expression estimates is still unclear. This study (1) investigates the effect of different genome annotations on RNA-seq quantification and (2) provides guidelines for choosing a genome annotation based on research focus. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 37% |
| India | 2 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| France | 2 | 7% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 15 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 11 | 41% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 5% |
| Japan | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 104 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 26% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 51 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 17 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,211,598
of 24,637,659 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#130
of 7,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,276
of 220,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#4
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,637,659 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 220,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.